If your an arbiter, what is your decision in this position

Oops, in my 25 black has to go to c2.  If he goes to b2 white can draw again... ok I fixed it and noted the error.

but anyway, yeah let them play it out lol.

Which part of black playing Ka6 in response to Kc7 you did not understand?

Back in the old days of correspondence chess, if an arbiter was called in to determine a result, the two players would submit their analysis of the position. If White showed he knew the drawing line, the arbiter would declare the game a draw. 

There's one more, basic idea for white: When Black finally takes the pawn, White must be able to play Kb4 immediately. So, it can never occupy b4 if Black can take the b6 pawn.  For example:

Post 18 is correct, 15 is wrong!

Post 15 would be a win for Black.  This is a classical case of Reciprocal Zugzwang.  Player to move loses.

And also, this should NEVER be granted an Insufficient Losing Chances claim.  A 1400 could lose this to a GM (by doing what White did in message 15).

People mis-use the ILC rule.  It's not "This is drawn".  It's "There is no way that anybody would ever lose this, including a 1400 to a GM.

For example:  KQ vs KQ, or KR vs KR, or KB(RP) with B being the wrong color vs K that currently resides in the corner the pawn would promote at, etc.

Because white has to move somewhere. See wafflemaster's post #32, where it is white's turn.

You see, in the game of chess one side makes a move, then another side makes a move. You cannot skip moves.

When you claim a draw / win by an arbiter, you don't have to just claim it. You have to provide analysis of what will happen to prove that you know how to play it.

In the current case, there are so many possibilities and no general idea that takes them all in account, so the players would never be able to explain the arbiter their claim so I let them play it out. (and substract time from the clock of the one who asked me to come )

They don't call an arbiter for that.

I am an arbiter (FIDE rules).

First, you didn't state who claimed the draw. If it is black, I would inform him that it isn't his turn and so he can't claim anything. If it is white, I check that the clock is stopped and ask him on what basis he's claiming a draw.

If it is rule 10.2 and that rule is in effect (it's a quickplay finish without increment, and white has less than two minutes), then I need to make a decision. First I inform black that this draw claim also counts as a draw offer, so he has until he makes his own move to decide whether he wants to accept.

Obviously, I won't accept the claim outright. This position can still be lost by white.

It is tempting to reject it outright, but as an arbiter I have nothing to lose by postponing my decision, on the off chance that black doesn't even try to win (in which case it would be correct to decide it is a draw).

So I announce I postpone my decision, give black two minutes extra time, and restart white's clock.

I will then stay to watch if at all possible (sometimes hard with many games) and make my decision after a flag falls. If white was making quick moves (not just waiting for his flag to fall...) and black wasn't trying to win, or white's flag has falling in a position that black can't realistically win anymore, it's a draw.

I hate rule 10.2. Increments for the win.

People are confusing OTB rules with correspondence rules here. 

Over the board, no arbiter would grant a draw in this position.

If the game went to arbitration in a correspondence tournament, the players would submit their analyses and the arbiter would award the point accordingly. 

They may be confusing arbitration with the forgotten practice of adjudication. Many years ago, when pairings where done by hand, tournaments sometimes had people in position to adjudicate the outcome of a game. This helped with pairing speed. There's a great article in the current New In Chess about Bobby Fischer serving as the adjudicator for the Greater New York Open and challenging critics of his decisions to play the positions out against him.